Is Philosophy crap?

[krash661]

Okay. Now I really do give up. I think the world had gone mad.

 

How does one respnd to a proposals stating that the philosophy that gave rise to science is part of science, such that science gave rise to science and philosophy had nothing to do with it. I have no idea.

it's about results.

 

and quit calling aunt sally.

The problem here, it seems to me, is that people who argue against metaphysics are not motivated to try and understand it.

the logic here is flawed. Edited June 3, 2013 by krash661

[PeterJ]

 

Could be useful is not the same as necessary.

Yes. Very true, A vitally important point. I might have mised it so stupid am I. Lucky i did not suggest otherwise. Perhaps we should spend an hour two on this vital issue rather than attempt to make progress.

 

 

Or the problem could be that people are arguing different points than the one you are trying to rebut.

 

I have no idea what we are arguing about. I see nothing to argue about. I am amazed that that we can't just all agree.

 

it's about results.

 

 

Of course it is about results. This is precisely my point. Few people here seem to give a damn about the results of metaphysics or have any idea what they are. So why do they assume they are useless? I don't get it. I really,don't get it, and am not just being disengenious.

 

I could quote a dozen scientist at length on these issues, but I don't suppose they'd get any more respect here than the last one I quoted.

[krash661]

Few people here seem to give a damn about the results of metaphysics or have any idea what they are. So why do they assume they are useless?

well, from what i have read, they keep asking you,

and yet you have failed to show,

simple.

[PeterJ]

"So why would they argue that metaphysics cannot help solve this problem..."

What problems has metaphysics solved so far?

 

Metaphysics solves problems in metaphysics, and I would rather say it sheds light on problems in science. .

 

It sheds light on all problems that involve fundamentals or absolutes. 'Fundamental physics' is metaphysics. If it isn't, then it isn't fundamental. By definition physics can never have a fundamental theory of anything.

 

So if we want to ask how big the universe is, whether it had a beginning, whether it is truly real, whether it is actually or only apparently extended in spacetime, the origin of the laws of physics etc., and all such profound questions, then we must do metaphysics for an answer.

 

A favourite example would the 'hard' problem of consciousness, a solution for which can be found in metaphysics. The scientific answer, according to some (Chalmers, McGinn et al) , would be to assume that it is intractable and give up on it. This is because they assume metaphysics is a waste of time and not worth bothering with. 'Cutting off our nose to spite our face' is how my gran would have put it.

 

The simple truth is that metaphysics does not endorse any positive metaphyscial position. If we do not know this, and do not apply it as a constraint on our scientific theories, then we are likely to end up proposing logically absurd theories. I cannot believe any decent scientist would want to do this.

 

Or we could take nonlocality. By the usual naive wysiwyg scientific view this is a baffling and impossible pheneomenon. A study of metaphysics shows that this is because we are making metaphysical assumptions about the reality of distance that can be reduced to absurdity. .

[krash661]

'Fundamental physics' is metaphysics. If it isn't, then it isn't fundamental. By definition physics can never have a fundamental theory of anything.

umm, actually,

PHYSICS

 

the study of the laws that determine the structures of the universe with reference to the matter and energy of which it consist.

 

It is concerned not with chemical changes that occur but with the forces that exist between objects and the interrelationship between matter and energy.

 

Traditionally,the study was divided into separate fields:

heat, light, sound, electricity and magnetism, and mechanics (classical physics).

 

Since the turn of the century, however, quantum mechanics and relativistic physics have become increasingly important ; the growth of modern physics has been accompanied by the studies of atomic physics, nuclear physics and particle physics.

 

the physics of astronomical bodies and their interactions is know as astrophysics,the physics of the earth is know as geophysics,and the study of the physical aspects of biology is called biophysics.

 

THEORETICAL PHYSICS

 

The study of physics by formulating and analyzing theories that describe natural processes.

 

Theoretical physics is complementary to the study of physics by experiment,which is called experimental physics.

 

A large of theoretical physics consist of analyzing the results of experiments to see whether or not they obey particular theories.

 

The branch of theoretical physics concerned with the mathematical aspects of theories in physics is called mathematical physics.

[John Cuthber]

Well, according to wiki "The hard problem of consciousness is the problem of explaining how and why we have qualia or phenomenal experiences — how sensations acquire characteristics, such as colors and tastes"

 

So, it's part of evolutionary biology then.

What does the metaphysics actually add by way of a solution?

Can it, for example, help people who have lost their sense of taste?

Or is it just people talking a lot of bollocks about the senses while real scientists try to fix the actual problem?

 

I presume that, when you said "he scientific answer, according to some (Chalmers, McGinn et al) , would be to assume that it is intractable and give up on it."

you were ignoring the fact that some scientists don't think that's the issue: the point is that metaphysics doesn't add anything but a further layer of abstraction which helps nobody.

 

In short "Metaphysics solves problems in metaphysics" so it's a bit like theology- pointless.

[PeterJ]

umm, actually,

PHYSICS etc ...

Yes. Your summary seems correct to me. I've been assuming that everybody here is up to speed with what physics is, but maybe it needed saying.

 

Well, according to wiki "The hard problem of consciousness is the problem of explaining how and why we have qualia or phenomenal experiences — how sensations acquire characteristics, such as colors and tastes"

 

So, it's part of evolutionary biology then.

What does the metaphysics actually add by way of a solution?

Can it, for example, help people who have lost their sense of taste?

Or is it just people talking a lot of bollocks about the senses while real scientists try to fix the actual problem?

 

I presume that, when you said "he scientific answer, according to some (Chalmers, McGinn et al) , would be to assume that it is intractable and give up on it."

you were ignoring the fact that some scientists don't think that's the issue: the point is that metaphysics doesn't add anything but a further layer of abstraction which helps nobody.

 

In short "Metaphysics solves problems in metaphysics" so it's a bit like theology- pointless.

 

It seems there's not even enough point in doing metaphysics to the point of being able to formulate a sensible argument against it. I can only suggest you look a little deeper than a Wiki article.

 

My research into the way people think about these things has benefited greatly from this discussion, albeit that it has left me rather depressed. I will continue to agree with most scientists and just agree to disagree with the rest.

 

Okay. Metaphysics is pointless. No hope for a fundamental theory then. Shame.

Edited June 3, 2013 by PeterJ

[D H]

Except, of course, that nature can, in fact, be better understood even absent any involvement from metaphysics whatsoever.

 

Exactly. (Well, almost exactly. See below on my own interpretation on the interpretations of quantum mechanics.) Metaphysics is not science. The best thing to do is to eliminate its use in the sciences.

 

Divorcing science from philosophy was a key aspect of the scientific revolution. ydoaPs touched on that back in post #160:

 

For example, the Ptolemaic system and the Copernican system explain the data equally well. When the shift was made from one to the other, it wasn't on experimental grounds.

 

What is this shift you are talking about? The Aristotelian / Ptolemaic point of view remained the dominant explanation of the universe up until Newton's time. Copernicus represents the starting point rather than the end point of the divorce between science and philosophy. Newtonian mechanics represents the filing of the divorce papers. It took another few hundred years to finalize the divorce.

 

Copernicus removed but one metaphysical assumption from that dominant Aristotelian / Ptolemaic point of view, that the Earth was the center of the universe. Copernicus kept the metaphysical baggage of circular motion as being the most pure kind of motion. Kepler took the next step, but his empirical laws were still laden with that music of the spheres metagarbage. Aristotelian physics was finally eliminated from the picture when Newton showed that Kepler's laws follow from mathematics.

 

Even Newton's physics had its bits of metaphysical baggage. (Newton was a religious whacko even by the standards of his own time.) It took another few hundred years to eliminate that metaphysical baggage from classical mechanics.

 

And then came quantum mechanics.

 

To me, the right interpretation of QM is "shut up and calculate (rev 2.0)": Stop arguing about which interpretation of QM is correct. Every valid interpretation of QM yields the same predictions for the outcome of an experiment. All interpretations of QM are fundamentally flawed because every single one of them is laden with some sort of metaphysical baggage. The correct, metaphysics-free interpretation of QM is yet to be invented. Until then, just shut up and calculate, using whatever interpretation you like.

[krash661]

Yes. Your summary seems correct to me.

it's not a summary,

it's a definition.

and IT IS(rather than seems) correct according to oxford university physics

 

No hope for a fundamental theory then. Shame.

like i stated in an earlier post,

 

they keep asking you,

and yet you have failed to show,

simple.

[PeterJ]

Ho ho. Stranger and stranger. Pardon me for agreeing with you.

 

I have answered every sensible question I've been asked.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited June 3, 2013 by PeterJ

[John Cuthber]

"Okay. Metaphysics is pointless. No hope for a fundamental theory then. ."

Unless, of course, the fundamental theory comes from somewhere else- like physics perhaps.

Did you not spot the non sequiteur in your assertion?

[PeterJ]

I would vote for this pointless thread to be closed.

 

Indeed. I'd vote for 'philosophy' here to be moved to 'religion', or even 'the lounge', since it detracts from the rather good science section.

"Okay. Metaphysics is pointless. No hope for a fundamental theory then. ."

Unless, of course, the fundamental theory comes from somewhere else- like physics perhaps.

Did you not spot the non sequiteur in your assertion?

 

Do I really have to go back to basics and explain that physics excludes the study of fundamentals and absolutes? This why we invented metaphysics in the first place, to free physics from the need to deal with such things. This is high school stuff. The clue is in the name.

Edited June 3, 2013 by PeterJ

[John Cuthber]

While I'm at it:

"The simple truth is that metaphysics does not endorse any positive metaphyscial position. If we do not know this, and do not apply it as a constraint on our scientific theories, then we are likely to end up proposing logically absurd theories. I cannot believe any decent scientist would want to do this."

Do you realise that no decent scientist would do that?

In fact, they could not do it.

From wiki

"A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of knowledge that has been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment."

No scientific theory can be logically absurd because reality wouldn't support it..

So what you are saying is that the metaphysics that most scientists don't use prevents them from doing something which would be impossible anyway.

[MonDie]

No scientific theory can be logically absurd because reality wouldn't support it..

 

As far as I know, logical absurdity can only be one of two things, a lack of coherence or a lack of meaning.

 

A scientific theory is a description of reality. A description that is incoherent or meaningless isn't a description at all. An incoherent description is nonsense, an improper use of language. It's like saying A=B and B=C, but A≠C. That's just bad math.

 

I don't see what 'logical absurdity' could be beyond this linguistic description of it.

Edited June 3, 2013 by Mondays Assignment: Die

[John Cuthber]

True, nothing which is not internally consistent could be termed a "theory" in science.So we have no need to rely on metaphysics to avoid such things.

[MonDie]

I wasn't expecting such a quick reply as I was editing. Oh well.

[ydoaPs]

I continue to see straw man rebuttals, like the analogy above, so I will try again to explain what I'm saying before quitting.

You ignoring just about every one of my points does not make my points straw men.

There were a few statements that contended that scientists must continually use philosophy. I have said, FOUR F***ING TIMES NOW, that if one is considering science as a subset of philosophy, then yes, this is true. We do it all the time. By definition. So really, if the continued rebuttal is gong to be that science is part of philosophy, can we just stop already? Do I have to agree to the point five times, or is ten required?

And I've said several times that scientific theories are all rife with metaphysics even if you ignore it. Ever come up with that test for the one-way speed of light?

 

And theory choice is itself not a merely empirical matter. If you add enough circles, you can justify anything.

 

Then there's that science never left the domain of metaphysics.

 

You have absolutely no case for science separating itself other than that it says it did.

 

 

I take the view that science is not a subset

And you're wrong.

I don't understad the logical consistency of claiming that philosophy is being ignored and "Yes, we could still do science, but who would want to do it on this basis, and what use would it be?" Well, what use has been all of the science that has been happening while philosophy has been ignored, and who is doing it?

Do you similarly fail to understand the consistency of QM being ignored and still being able to do chemistry?

Same with Ptolemy vs Copernicus; there's no mechanism. It's simply ad-hoc.

Which is.....wait for it....PHILOSOPHICAL JUSTIFICATION OF SCIENTIFIC THEORY CHOICE. Boom goes the dynamite.

I think A Tripolation asked for examples of philosophy using empiricism and coming up with truths about the world and never got a response. Maybe you have some?

There are quite a few. My mentor, for example, is working on whether morality is cognitive or non-cognitive. As such, he works extensively empirically in how disgust features in moral judgments. His PhD adviser is working on whether or not moral realism is true at all, so he does a lot of empirical philosophy on persistent fundamental moral disagreement between cultures.

 

 

If I burn my hand in a fire, I learn something about nature. I learned that fire burns me. How has metaphysics played a role here? According to your post above, it must have. My understanding of nature is very clearly increased (hand in fire makes ouch), yet it happened all without metaphysics ever coming into the picture.

 

IMO, this is a rather critical flaw in your premise and reasoning.

Quick question before a fuller response: am I to take "hand in fire makes ouch" to mean "hand in fire causes me to feel pain"?

Not necessarily, no.

 

 

I fail to see how "hand in fire makes ouch" means anything other than the fire causes some personal agent to have a qualitative reaction. And that's chock full of metaphysics. Perhaps you should elaborate.

Except, of course, that nature can, in fact, be better understood even absent any involvement from metaphysics whatsoever.

Except it can't. There are untestable metaphysical assumptions everywhere. For example, swansont has been running from the one-way speed of light the entire discussion.

It comes down to your own personal aesthetics. So, basically, it comes down to some metaphysics.

No. Not now; not ever. Intrinsic probability is an objective thing. You cannot rationally choose a theory based on personal [subjective] aesthetics. It comes down to objective features of theories: coherence and simplicity.

At the risk of putting words in certain people's mouths, I think the claim is more accurately expressed as, "Science has adopted the methods from philosophy that provide a firm grounding for scientific investigation, and is now self-sustaining in that regard." This is not the same as ignoring the contributions philosophy has made or will continue to make.

Science has started out as philosophy and never stopped being philosophy. It is still permeated with untestable metaphysical assumptions and theory choice itself is not solely an empirical matter. If you add enough circles, anything is justifiable.

Could be useful is not the same as necessary.

It is absolutely necessary. Again, show me a test set up for the one-way speed of light.

Exactly. (Well, almost exactly. See below on my own interpretation on the interpretations of quantum mechanics.) Metaphysics is not science. The best thing to do is to eliminate its use in the sciences.

 

Divorcing science from philosophy was a key aspect of the scientific revolution. ydoaPs touched on that back in post #160:

 

 

What is this shift you are talking about? The Aristotelian / Ptolemaic point of view remained the dominant explanation of the universe up until Newton's time. Copernicus represents the starting point rather than the end point of the divorce between science and philosophy. Newtonian mechanics represents the filing of the divorce papers. It took another few hundred years to finalize the divorce.

 

Copernicus removed but one metaphysical assumption from that dominant Aristotelian / Ptolemaic point of view, that the Earth was the center of the universe. Copernicus kept the metaphysical baggage of circular motion as being the most pure kind of motion. Kepler took the next step, but his empirical laws were still laden with that music of the spheres metagarbage. Aristotelian physics was finally eliminated from the picture when Newton showed that Kepler's laws follow from mathematics.

 

Even Newton's physics had its bits of metaphysical baggage. (Newton was a religious whacko even by the standards of his own time.) It took another few hundred years to eliminate that metaphysical baggage from classical mechanics.

 

And then came quantum mechanics.

 

To me, the right interpretation of QM is "shut up and calculate (rev 2.0)": Stop arguing about which interpretation of QM is correct. Every valid interpretation of QM yields the same predictions for the outcome of an experiment. All interpretations of QM are fundamentally flawed because every single one of them is laden with some sort of metaphysical baggage. The correct, metaphysics-free interpretation of QM is yet to be invented. Until then, just shut up and calculate, using whatever interpretation you like.

Show me a test for the one-way speed of light.

[John Cuthber]

Show me a test for the one-way speed of light.

Didn't CERN do that (in principle) a while ago when they raced light against some neutrinos and initially thought that the neutrinos had won.

Actually, they timed neutrinos but, there was nothing to stop them using the same system to measure c.

[PeterJ]

I've given up. But good luck ydoaPs. I expect you're the best scientist here, and probably the best philosopher as well.

 

Maybe someone could post a quotion from a decent scientist opposing your view. Or maybe not. I wouldn't be able to do it.

[swansont]

You ignoring just about every one of my points does not make my points straw men.

And I've said several times that scientific theories are all rife with metaphysics even if you ignore it. Ever come up with that test for the one-way speed of light?

 

 

And theory choice is itself not a merely empirical matter. If you add enough circles, you can justify anything.

 

Then there's that science never left the domain of metaphysics.

 

You have absolutely no case for science separating itself other than that it says it did.

 

 

And you're wrong.

Sigh.

 

If you're simply going to ignore my definition and insist on yours, then I refer you my previous comments. Yes, under your definition of the system, science does philosophy. (Is five enough? Nobody has answered that yet) But when you ignore my premise, it does make your arguments a straw man. You have changed the the argument I am making in order to say I am wrong.

 

 

 

Still waiting for someone to answer the repeated inquiries about those metaphysical but non-scientific answers

[iNow]

Maybe someone could post a quotion from a decent scientist opposing your view. Or maybe not. I wouldn't be able to do it.

Even if you could, this approach is not a valid line of reasoning. It would instead be an appeal to authority and would be a logical fallacy that should convince no one. You can quote anyone you want. It won't matter. Just because some dude named Epiphanese or Soren or Bob says something does not mandate its validity or truth.

[proximity1]

N° 196 :

 

All arguments and the facts on which they rely rest, ultimately and in one manner or another, on some kind of an "appeal to authority" since there is no such thing as pure, pristine, "objective reason" or pure, pristine "objective fact"-- there are only " Epiphanese's or Soren's or Bob's" or some other person's claims about what is or is not a fact.

 

When we "appeal" to "facts" we are appealing to someone's claims as to what constitutes these--including the underlying claims which concern one or another measuring instrument's data as objective facts about nature.

 

If nothing else, the general and persistent failure at this site to recognize the import of this is, in and of itself, one of the most telling examples of the importance of philosophy and of the silly nonsense that ensues when that importance is forgotten or denied.

 

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwin_Arthur_Burtt and The Metaphysical Foundations of Modern Physical Science. A Historical and Critical Essay (1924) London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trübner. (linked from Wikipédia).

Edited June 5, 2013 by proximity1

[John]

The bigger problem I see with PeterJ's "decent scientist" comment is that any scientist who does oppose ydoaPs' view could easily be dismissed as not a "decent scientist."

 

Feynman did say something like, "Philosophy is as useful to scientists as ornithology is to birds." Of course, I'm not sure it actually counts, since I don't know how useful he considered ornithology to be for birds.

 

Hawking said philosophy is "dead," though as I recall it was more in the context of (at least some, maybe most) modern philosophers failing to keep up with the latest advances in scientific theory. Here is a fun discussion of what he said.

 

Those are two examples. I'm sure there are others to find. Some may simply be taken out of context, but I'd wager there are actually many "decent scientists" who hold the view that philosophical study is not extremely important for scientists in modern practice.

 

Is everything that makes use of concepts grounded in philosophy reducible to philosophy? When a chef decides on ingredients to use in a dish, does the fact that he's making some use of aesthetics, chemistry and mathematics (whether he really realizes it or not) mean that chefs are essentially doing philosophy? Is everyone doing philosophy every day? If so, then are we saying that everyone who isn't well-versed in philosophy isn't *really* doing whatever it is they think they're doing? And if not, where is the line drawn?

 

That last bit may be a silly line of questioning, and feel free to tell me if you think so; but I'm curious.

 

Otherwise, please carry on.

[ydoaPs]

Didn't CERN do that (in principle) a while ago when they raced light against some neutrinos and initially thought that the neutrinos had won.

Actually, they timed neutrinos but, there was nothing to stop them using the same system to measure c.

Nope. They still needed to sync the distant clocks.

Sigh.

 

If you're simply going to ignore my definition and insist on yours, then I refer you my previous comments.

I'm insisting on my definitions, because they are right. And I've given several reasons why. THAT is what you have ignored. You've been trying to push this line that we can all rationally believe what we want in this case. That is simply not a true view in this case, there is a right answer and you so happen to be wrong.

 

Science began as and never left metaphysics. Even now, when it pretends it isn't, it is permeated with metaphysical assumptions. And theory choice is still done (quite rightly so) with non-empirical considerations such as ad-hocness which you pointed out previously.

But when you ignore my premise, it does make your arguments a straw man. You have changed the the argument I am making in order to say I am wrong.

I didn't ignore your premise, I gave several reasons why it's completely wrong. Which you are still ignoring.

Still waiting for someone to answer the repeated inquiries about those metaphysical but non-scientific answers

I'm still waiting for you to show me how you can test the one-way speed of light.

[swansont]

I'm insisting on my definitions, because they are right. And I've given several reasons why. THAT is what you have ignored.

I have to disagree. Acknowledging five times is not ignoring. It's kinda the opposite of ignoring.

 

You don't want to consider this according to my terms and that's fine. There's nothing to discuss.

I'm still waiting for you to show me how you can test the one-way speed of light.

Unlike the repeated assertions about all those metaphysical but non-scientific answers out there, I never made any claims about this.